DOCSLIB.ORG

H-Diplo | ISSF POLICY Series America and the World—2017 and Beyond

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
H-Diplo | ISSF POLICY Series America and the World—2017 and Beyond H-Diplo | ISSF POLICY Series America and the World—2017 and Beyond “Maximum Pressure:” The Trump Administration and Iran Essay by Gregory Brew, Southern Methodist University Published on 22 January 2019 | issforum.org Editor: Diane Labrosse Web and Production Editor: George Fujii Shortlink: http://tiny.cc/PR-1-5BM Permalink: http://issforum.org/roundtables/policy/1-5BM-Iran PDF URL: http://issforum.org/ISSF/PDF/Policy-Roundtable-1-5BM.pdf hile campaigning for President in 2015 and 2016, Donald Trump never missed an opportunity to attack the major foreign policy achievement of President Barack Obama: the Joint Comprehensive W Plan of Action (JCPOA), an agreement reached between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States, European Union, China, and Russia in June 2015 that halted Iran’s development of nuclear weapons in exchange for relief from economic sanctions. Criticizing the deal had been popular among Obama’s detractors, but Trump’s denunciations were particularly vociferous. “My number one priority,” he declared, “is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran.”1 He called it a “terrible” deal, one negotiated “in desperation,” which he vowed to rip up as soon as he took office.2 Iran came up, again and again, as yet another area where the Obama Administration had surrendered U.S. interests and initiative. During its first two years in office, the Trump Administration pursued a policy towards Iran defined by pain and pressure. From abandoning the JCPOA, to adopting a hard-line against Iran through sanctions and rhetoric, the Trump Administration pivoted away from the diplomatic gestures of the Obama Administration, in a determined effort to apply “maximum pressure” and even, some believe, to bring about the collapse of the Islamic Republic itself.3 It is undeniable that this new U.S. campaign has made life more difficult for the Iranian government. But there is little evidence that sanctions alone will compel Iran to negotiate, or that such pressure will bring about the collapse of the regime. The campaign, led by ardent “Iran hawks” like John Bolton and Michael Pompeo, represents a fixation with Iran as the root of all evil plaguing the Middle East, and yet it lacks coherence or purpose, beyond the naked desire to inflict pain on Iran 1 Sarah Begley, “Read Donald Trump’s Speech to AIPAC,” Time, 21 March 2016. 2 Katy Tur, “Donald Trump Weighs in on Iran Deal,” NBC News, 14 July 2015, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-weighs-iran-deal-n391926. 3 Vali Nasr, “The Iran Regime-Change Crew is Back,” The Atlantic, 25 April 2018, https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/04/iran-nuclear-deal-bolton-trump-regime-change/558785/. ISSF Policy Series whenever and however possible. Within the embattled, chaotic Trump Administration, Iran competes with other, arguably more pressing foreign and domestic issues. The ultimate outcome of the U.S. turn towards “maximum pressure” will be hard to assess, apart from the pain it has inflicted, and will continue to inflict, on Iran’s population. The United States and Iran: Let’s Make a Deal Why the United States should be so concerned with Iran is not, on the face of it, a confusing notion. Iran is resource-rich, possessing the world’s fourth largest oil reserves and second largest gas reserves, though its domestic economy is diverse compared to those of other oil-producing Middle Eastern states. Straddling the Persian Gulf, Central Asia, South Asia, and the Caucasus, in geographic terms it is one of the most strategically important countries on earth. The Iranian population is well-educated, and while it is ethnically diverse it is held together by a strong sense of national identity forged by thousands of years of history, literary tradition, and common culture. Unlike other Middle Eastern states, including Syria, Egypt and Iraq, Iran was never formerly colonized, and its borders are the result of centuries of geopolitical shifts rather than the casual whims of European imperialists. Before the Islamic Revolution of 1978-1979, Iran was the most important American ally in the Middle East. Iran’s ruler, the Shah, owed his position to U.S. support. In August 1953, a CIA-assisted coup d’état removed the democratic constitutionalist Mohammed Mossadegh from power and replaced him with a military regime led by the Shah, who harnessed U.S. aid and oil revenues to build up Iran economically while utilizing his secret police to crush dissent. The monarchy lost its credibility as the Shah’s modernization alienated large swathes of the population, rewarding a small urban elite with disproportionate wealth while most Iranians lived in abject poverty.4 Opposition to the Shah grew as income inequality and inflation ate away at Iran’s economy. Amidst a national crisis in the late 1970s, the Shah, who was dying of cancer, fled the country, paving the way for a new government led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Denunciations of the U.S. as the “Great Satan” responsible for the Shah’s tyranny, as well as the November 1979 storming of the American embassy and the ensuing hostage crisis, led to a rapid deterioration in U.S.-Iranian relations. The United States acted to contain Iran, first by backing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) and later by supporting Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and the other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which view Iran as a major threat. Although there have been repeated efforts to establish a modus vivendi between Washington and Tehran, most notably in the late 1990s during the administration of reformist President Mohammed Khatami, the 4 The best survey of the U.S.-Iranian relationships remains James A. Bill, The Eagle and the Lion: The Tragedy of American-Iranian Relations (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988); see also Richard Cottam, Iran and the United States: A Cold War Case Study (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1989); Barry Rubin, Paved with Good Intentions: The American Experience and Iran (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980); James F. Goode, The United States and Iran, 1946-51: the Diplomacy of Neglect (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1989), and The United States and Iran: in the Shadow of Mosaddeq (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997), Mark J. Gasiorowski, U.S. Foreign Policy and the Shah: Building a Client State in Iran (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991). 2 | Page ISSF Policy Series relationship between the U.S. and Iran has been characterized by suspicion and antagonism.5 Iran’s government is repressive and authoritarian, controlled by a small clique of clerics and politicians who enforce a restrictive social order while jailing or silencing dissidents. In the twenty-first century the Islamic Republic has widened its involvement in regional struggles, taking advantage of the mayhem which ensued from the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the outbreak of civil war in Syria in 2011 to expand its profile through proxy groups, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and Shi’a militias in Syria and Iraq. The regime’s pursuit of nuclear technology reached an advanced stage in the early 2000s, drawing condemnation from the international community and a fresh round of international sanctions. Such adventurism has little popular basis for support within Iran, where power is held primarily by the clerical establishment. Though difficult to measure accurately, it appears that most Iranians hold positive views of the United States and of Americans in general, particularly among the younger generation who grew up in the shadow of the Islamic Revolution.6 Frustrated from years of mismanagement and repression, Iran’s educated middle-class came out in their thousands during the 2009 Green Revolution, demanding greater freedoms and economic opportunities. The regime retained control of the country, but its legitimacy was shaken, and the need to deliver greater opportunities to average Iranians grew more immediate.7 The Obama Administration, wary of further entangling the United States in Middle East conflicts, adopted a policy that prioritized economic pressure as a way to force Iran to the negotiating table. The policy did not represent a major departure from previous approaches to Iran under President Bill Clinton or George W. Bush.8 Rather, it was notable for its transactional character, as well as the apparent friendly rapport struck at the negotiating table by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif. After prolonged talks, the relatively moderate Iranian administration of President Hasan Rouhani agreed to limit Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium and open nuclear facilities to international inspection. In exchange, Rouhani won relief from economic sanctions, which he used to justify the agreement to the Iranian people and conservatives within the Iranian government. The news was rapturously received by young Iranians, who paraded through the streets flashing peace signs, celebrating what many felt to be the dawn of a new age, the moment when Iran would be allowed to rejoin the international community after decades of isolation.9 5 Barbara Slavin, Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies: Iran, the U.S., and the Twisted Path of Confrontation (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2007): 103-120, 175-192. 6 “How Young Iranians View America,” New York Times, 13 December 2013, https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/how-young-iranians-view-america/. 7 Abbas Milani, “The Green Movement,” The Iran Primer, https://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/green- movement. 8 Suzanne Maloney, “Progress of the Obama Administration’s Policy Toward Iran,” Brookings Institute, 15 November 2011, https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/progress-of-the-obama-administrations-policy-toward-iran/. 9 Saeed Kamali Dehghan and Ian Black, “Thousands Take to Iran Streets to Celebrate the Historic Nuclear Deal,” The Guardian, 14 July 2015, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/14/joy-in-tehran-at-end-to-isolation- but-hardliner-reaction-to-nuclear-deal-feared.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A WAY FORWARD with IRAN? Options for Crafting a U.S. Strategy
    A WAY FORWARD WITH IRAN? Options for Crafting a U.S. Strategy THE SOUFAN CENTER FEBRUARY 2021 A WAY FORWARD WITH IRAN? OPTIONS FOR CRAFTING A U.S. STRATEGY A WAY FORWARD WITH IRAN? Options for Crafting a U.S. Strategy THE SOUFAN CENTER FEBRUARY 2021 Cover photo: Associated Press Photo/Photographer: Mohammad Berno 2 A WAY FORWARD WITH IRAN? OPTIONS FOR CRAFTING A U.S. STRATEGY CONTENTS List of Abbreviations 4 List of Figures 5 Key Findings 6 How Did We Reach This Point? 7 Roots of the U.S.-Iran Relationship 9 The Results of the Maximum Pressure Policy 13 Any Change in Iranian Behavior? 21 Biden Administration Policy and Implementation Options 31 Conclusion 48 Contributors 49 About The Soufan Center 51 3 A WAY FORWARD WITH IRAN? OPTIONS FOR CRAFTING A U.S. STRATEGY LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS BPD Barrels Per Day FTO Foreign Terrorist Organization GCC Gulf Cooperation Council IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency ICBM Intercontinental Ballistic Missile IMF International Monetary Fund IMSC International Maritime Security Construct INARA Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act INSTEX Instrument for Supporting Trade Exchanges IRGC Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps IRGC-QF Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps - Qods Force JCPOA Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action MBD Million Barrels Per Day PMF Popular Mobilization Forces SRE Significant Reduction Exception 4 A WAY FORWARD WITH IRAN? OPTIONS FOR CRAFTING A U.S. STRATEGY LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Iran Annual GDP Growth and Change in Crude Oil Exports 18 Figure 2: Economic Effects of Maximum Pressure 19 Figure 3: Armed Factions Supported by Iran 25 Figure 4: Comparison of Iran Nuclear Program with JCPOA Limitations 28 5 A WAY FORWARD WITH IRAN? OPTIONS FOR CRAFTING A U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • THE FUTURE of US-IRAN RELATIONS by Jenny Gan
    THE FUTURE OF US-IRAN RELATIONS By Jenny Gan INTRODUCTION Over the past fifty years, the United States and Iran have experienced a tumultuous relationship that has sometimes revealed itself as a close international partnership and other times a contentious rivalry. Since 1953, the United States has helped conduct President Trump a coup d’état in 1953 to overthrow Iran’s prime minister, navigated imposing sanctions the US Embassy hostage crisis, and dealt with the Iran-Contra on Iran following scandal (“US-Iran Relations”). Despite a rocky end to the 20th the dissolution of century, following sanctions in the early 2000s, the US and Iran the US-Iran Nuclear entered a state of peace following the rising global concerns over the Deal. development of an Iranian nuclear arsenal (“US-Iran Relations”). Saul Loeb/AFP via However, the United States’ relationship with Iran took a sharp Getty Images turn following rising tensions in the Gulf, including new economic sanctions, explosions targeting oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman, and US military drone surveillance over the Strait of Hormuz (“US-Iran Relations”). Tensions rose to a fever pitch after the assassination of Coup d’état – the General Qasem Soleimani by a US drone and resulted in Iran pulling forcible removal of an out of the nuclear agreement while also promising revenge against existing government the United States (Ward). from power through Best described as tumultuous, the relationship between Iran and violent means. the United States has major implications for global peace, as Iran has nuclear capabilities and is a key player in the Middle East, a region where the United States has vested economic and political interests.
    [Show full text]
  • Iran I Stany Zjednoczone
    IRAN I STANY ZJEDNOCZONE – GENEZA, STAN OBECNY I PERSPEKTYWY IRAN I STANY ZJEDNOCZONE – geneza, stan obecny i perspektywy Autor: dr Robert Czulda, Jakub Gajda Program Polityka Międzynarodowa Warszawa 2019 SPIS TREŚCI I. Polityka Stanów Zjednoczonych wobec Iranu 7 II. Perspektywa państwa członkowskiego Unii Europejskiej 16 III. Wnioski i rekomendacje 17 Bliskie nawiązanie relacji amerykańsko-irańskich wizerunek Stanów Zjednoczonych w Iranie. Od przypada na lata czterdzieste XX wieku. W 1942 tego momentu nawet umiarkowani Irańczycy nie roku, podczas brytyjsko-sowieckiej okupacji Iranu, ufają Zachodowi sądząc, że ani Wielka Brytania, w kraju tym pojawili się pierwsi amerykańscy ani Stany Zjednoczone nie dbają o pomyślność ich żołnierze. W późniejszej fazie szach Iranu narodu, lecz jedynie o własne interesy. Mohammad Reza Pahlawi zbliżył się politycznie i gospodarczo do Stanów Zjednoczonych, widząc w Dzięki wsparciu i namowom Stanów Zjednoczonych nich geostrategiczną przeciwwagę dla mocarstw pod koniec lat pięćdziesiątych Iran zainicjował dominujących od kilku stuleci w regionie Bliskiego cywilny program jądrowy. Wiązało się to z planem i Środkowego Wschodu: spadkobiercy Rosji – monarchy, aby przekształcić Iran w regionalne Związku Sowieckiego i Wielkiej Brytanii. Po II mocarstwo. Jednym z elementów tej strategii była wojnie światowej Iran stał się dla Amerykanów budowa nowoczesnych sił zbrojnych. Ambitne plany ważnym przyczółkiem na Bliskim Wschodzie, Pahlawiego wpisywały się w strategię Stanów dającym możliwość regionalnego oddziaływania,
    [Show full text]
  • Iran's Foreign and Defense Policies
    Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies Updated May 8, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R44017 SUMMARY R44017 Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies May 8, 2019 Iran’s national security policy is the product of many overlapping and sometimes competing factors such as the ideology of Iran’s Islamic revolution, perception of threats Kenneth Katzman to the regime and to the country, long-standing national interests, and the interaction of Specialist in Middle the Iranian regime’s factions and constituencies. Iran’s leadership: Eastern Affairs x Seeks to deter or thwart U.S. or other efforts to invade or intimidate Iran or to bring about a change of regime. x Has sought to take advantage of opportunities of regional conflicts to overturn a power structure in the Middle East that it asserts favors the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other Sunni Muslim Arab regimes. x Seeks to enhance its international prestige and restore a sense of “greatness” reminiscent of ancient Persian empires. x Advances its foreign policy goals, in part by providing material support to regional allied governments and armed factions. Iranian officials characterize the support as helping the region’s “oppressed” and assert that Saudi Arabia, in particular, is instigating sectarian tensions and trying to exclude Iran from regional affairs. x Sometimes disagrees on tactics and strategies. Supreme Leader Ali Khamene’i and key hardline institutions, such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), oppose any compromises of Iran’s national security core goals. Iran’s elected president, Hassan Rouhani, and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif support Iran’s integration into regional and international diplomacy.
    [Show full text]
  • Iran, Israel, the Persian Gulf, and the United States: a Conflict Resolution Perspective
    Iran, Israel, the Persian Gulf, and the United States: A Conflict Resolution Perspective By Simon Tanios Abstract Where the Middle East is often described as a battleground between “chosen peoples”, Johan Galtung, the principal founder of the discipline of peace and conflict studies, preferred to see it as a conflict between “persecuted peoples”. Iran, Israel, the Persian Gulf, and the United States have been in various conflicts through history shaking peace in the Middle East, with a prevailing tense atmosphere in relations between many parties, despite some periods of relatively eased tensions or even strategic alliances. Nowadays, Iran considers the United States an arrogant superpower exploiting oppressed nations, while the United States sees Iran as irresponsible supporting terrorism. In sync with this conflict dynamic, on one hand, the conflict between Iran and many Gulf countries delineates important ideological, geopolitical, military, and economic concerns, and on the other hand, the conflict between Iran and Israel takes a great geopolitical importance in a turbulent Middle East. In this paper, we expose the main actors, attitudes, and behaviors conflicting in the Middle East region, particularly with regard to Iran, Israel, the Gulf countries, and the United States, describing the evolution of their relations, positions, and underlying interests and needs. Then, while building our work on the Galtung’s transcend theory for peace, we expose some measures that may be helpful for peace-making in the Middle East. Keywords: Iran; Israel; Gulf countries; the United States; conflict resolution. I. Introduction of Israel in the Muslim World, and the mutual animosity between Iran and the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Iran Primer – July 2019
    Iran Primer – July 2019 Iran: A Basic Primer Presented by Vern Liebl Prepared by the Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning, MCU – 2019 Military Threat …to Who? 2 Perspectives are Important Shi’a Populations Iran: 90-95% Iraq: 65% Bahrain: 65% Lebanon*: 35% Yemen: 35-40% Regional KSA: 20% Shi’a Syria*: 10-15% populations *Disputed An Iranian view of surrounding U.S. military bases showing who is the “true” threat 3 Traditional Current U.S. Expert “Views” on Iran • Iran is a Revolutionary state, has been such since 1979 and will likely remain so probably for decades into the 21st century (the 2009 Green Movement was crushed) • Iran is a theocracy, believes that what they are doing is ‘Allah’s will’ o Is why the U.S. is called the ‘Great Satan’ by the mullahs o This theocratic underpinning imbues the regime with immense strength • Taken together, Iran wants no part of the current ‘secular’ world order, remains revolutionary and intent on changing that order to one of an Islamic Imamate in which leadership of all Muslims will be by Velayat al-Faqih with a Shi’a in the lead • Iran is in a desperate war with the U.S. (aka the Great Satan) as the major roadblock to Iranian aspirations • Exporting of the Revolution abroad is to primarily Shi’a populations with some allied Sunni enclaves/groups heavily dependent on Iranian funding • Any U.S. strikes on the Iranian homeland (Persia) is not the opening for a broader war but just an intensification of the current one • Iran is not shy to bring the war to America nor to act against global U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Obama Administration and the Puzzle of the Iranian Nuclear Program Kaitlin E
    Claremont Colleges Scholarship @ Claremont Scripps Senior Theses Scripps Student Scholarship 2014 Keeping Iran from the Bomb: The Obama Administration and the Puzzle of the Iranian Nuclear Program Kaitlin E. Marshall Scripps College Recommended Citation Marshall, Kaitlin E., "Keeping Iran from the Bomb: The Obama Administration and the Puzzle of the Iranian Nuclear Program" (2014). Scripps Senior Theses. Paper 387. http://scholarship.claremont.edu/scripps_theses/387 This Open Access Senior Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Scripps Student Scholarship at Scholarship @ Claremont. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scripps Senior Theses by an authorized administrator of Scholarship @ Claremont. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ! ! ! KEEPING IRAN FROM THE BOMB: THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AND THE PUZZLE OF THE IRANIAN NUCLEAR !PROGRAM ! ! ! ! by! KAITLIN E. MARSHALL! ! ! SUBMITTED TO SCRIPPS COLLEGE IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR! OF ARTS ! ! ! PROFESSOR ANDREWS PROFESSOR BODUSZYNSKI! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! APRIL 25, 2014 !1 Table of Contents! Foreword Page 4 Chapter One: A Historic Phone Call Introduction Page 6 Literature Review: Politics Page 11 Literature Review: The Evolution of Stereotypes Page 14 Method Page 17 Chapter Organization Page 18 Conclusion Page 20 Chapter Two: The Hostage Crisis and the Origins of American-Iranian Hostility Build-Up to Revolution Page 22 The United States’ Fears and President Carter’s Mistake Page 25 Imagery of the Great Satan
    [Show full text]
  • The Tragedy of the Iran Hostage Crisis
    GETTING THE AYATOLLAH WRONG: PERCEPTIONS AND MISPERCEPTIONS OF IRAN’S REVOLUTIONARY LEADERSHIP DAVID PATRICK HOUGHTON DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE P.O. BOX 161356 UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA ORLANDO, FL 32816 USA EMAIL: [email protected] TEL: (407) 823-6025 FAX: (407) 823-0051 Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, San Diego, CA, April 2012. Abstract Relations between Iran and the West have long been plagued on both sides by misunderstandings and misconceptions of the motivations and beliefs which drive the behavior of foreign policy elites. This paper focuses in particular on script-driven misperceptions of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and on how and why these changed over time. Why in particular did the Carter administration get Khomeini so wrong? It is argued here that a ‘cult of the Shah’ left the American intelligence community singularly unprepared to deal with any new regime after Mohammed Reza Pahlavi’s fall, and that the prevalence of the Cold War strategic script in particular led many to downgrade the importance of the Iranian clergy. Perceptions of Khomeini, it is suggested, passed through three stages: he was initially viewed as a figure of irrelevance by many in the West, or as someone who could not possibly influence the course of events in Tehran. This misperception then gave way by late 1978 to another: the notion that Khomeini was a ‘Gandhi-like’ figure with whom American leaders could bargain, but ignorance about Khomeini’s background and aims within the White House and other elements of the administration led to a disastrous attempt to court his moderate allies within the provisional government.
    [Show full text]
  • The Iranian Revolution, 1978-1979
    World History in Context- Print http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/whic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?failOve... The Iranian Revolution, 1978-1979 Historic World Events, 2012 From World History in Context The Iranian Revolution was characterized by the overthrow of the Shah's government and the resulting international ramifications, including the American hostage crisis Key Figures President Jimmy (James Earl) Carter, thirty-ninth president of the United States (1977- 1981), accused of "plotting" against the Khomeini regime and regarded as the "Great Satan." Ayatollah Khomeini, exiled Islamic leader (1963-1979), who came to power during the revolution and instituted an anti-American theocratic government. Mohammed Riza Pahlavi, last Shah of Iran, who ruled between 1941 and 1979, before he was deposed in 1979. Summary of Event Iran in the late twentieth century was regarded as a powerful country whose foreign and domestic politics had a reverberating impact on the world stage. Home to some forty million inhabitants, Iran in the early-twenty-first century boasts a land mass as vast as Western Europe, an abundance of sophisticated military technology, and a wealth of natural resources--in particular, oil. In the past decades, Iran has made great strides toward industrialization, perhaps unmatched by any other country apart from Japan. In accordance with its population size, Iran is composed of various peoples and cultures that all share one common history--that of relative independence from an outside country. Until the 1900s, Iran was called Persia, the remnant (in name, at least) of an ancient empire that stretched from Greece to India in the fifth century b.c.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Critical MASS Nuclear Proliferation in the Middle East N I the M N the Iddle E Iddle Ast Andrew F
    CRITI C AL MASS: NU C LEAR PROLIFERATIO CRITICAL MASS NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION IN THE MIddLE EAst N I N THE M IDDLE E AST ANDREW F. KREPINEVICH F. ANDREW 1667 K Street, NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20006 Tel. 202-331-7990 • Fax 202-331-8019 www.csbaonline.org ANDREW F. KREPINEVICH CRITICAL MASS: NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION IN THE MIDDLE EAST BY ANDREW F. KREPINEVICH 2013 About the Authors Dr. Andrew F. Krepinevich, Jr. is the President of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, which he joined following a 21- year career in the U.S. Army. He has served in the Department of De- fense’s Office of Net Assessment, on the personal staff of three secretar- ies of defense, the National Defense Panel, the Defense Science Board Task Force on Joint Experimentation, and the Defense Policy Board. He is the author of 7 Deadly Scenarios: A Military Futurist Explores War in the 21st Century and The Army and Vietnam. A West Point graduate, he holds an M.P.A. and a Ph.D. from Harvard University. Acknowledgments The author would like to thank Eric Edelman, Evan Montgomery, Jim Thomas, and Barry Watts for reviewing and commenting on earlier ver- sions of this report. Thanks are also in order for Eric Lindsey for his re- search and editorial support and to Kamilla Gunzinger for her copyedit- ing. Eric Lindsey also provided graphics support that greatly enhanced the report’s presentation. Any shortcomings in this assessment, however, are the author’s re- sponsibility and the author’s alone. © 2013 Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
    [Show full text]
  • SCENARIO APPLICATIONS: STRESS TESTING COMPANIES in the ENERGY VALUE CHAIN Acknowledgements
    Cambridge Centre for Risk Studies Cambridge Case Study Series SCENARIO APPLICATIONS: STRESS TESTING COMPANIES IN THE ENERGY VALUE CHAIN Acknowledgements Cambridge Centre for Risk Studies gratefully acknowledges the Institute for Risk Management for supporting the Contents research efforts summarised in this report. The Centre is grateful for the expertise provided by our research About the Institute of Risk Management (IRM) ............................................................................4 team, collaborators, and subject matter specialists. Any Forward from IRM . .5 misinterpretation in use of the advice provided is entirely Executive Summary ......................................................................................................6 the responsibility of the Cambridge Centre for Risk Studies. Section 1: Introduction ...................................................................................................8 Paper Citation: Companies within the Energy Value Chain. .9 Cambridge Centre for Risk Studies, 2019. Scenario Section 2: The Business Environment of Energy Value Chain Companies. 10 Applications: Stress Testing Companies in the Energy Value Chain. Cambridge Centre A Market View ......................................................................................................10 for Risk Studies at the University of Cambridge Judge State of Geopolitics .................................................................................................11 Business School in collaboration with the Institute
    [Show full text]
  • Commentary… of a Sovereign State’S Capital? to Promote the P.A
    בס״ד Ballabon also עש"ק פרשת כי תבוא 18 Elul 5781 ISRAEL NEWS wrote: “It is troubling Aug 27, 2021 enough that Biden Issue number 1360 A collection of the week’s news from Israel would re-engage with the terror- From the Bet El Twinning / Israel Action Committee of supporting P.A. and send it Jerusalem 6:29 money (also likely a violation of Beth Avraham Yoseph of Toronto Congregation Toronto 7:43 U.S. law); but to establish a beachhead for a hostile terrorist pseudo-government in the center Commentary… of a sovereign state’s capital? To promote the P.A. while it continues publicly to pay terrorists and 10 Reasons not to Reopen the US Consulate in Jerusalem promote the eradication of all Israel?” By Chaim Silberstein And Hillel Fendel 10. It sends a discriminatory signal. Three months ago, when U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken For the United States to open a consulate in Jerusalem just for visited Israel and the Palestinian Authority, he declared that the Biden Arabs “delivers a dangerous and ambiguous signal that this administration would reopen its consulate in Jerusalem. Until it was administration may well support a divided Jerusalem,” writes former closed in 2019 by the Trump administration, following the opening of Deputy National Security Advisor Elliott Abrams. “The fact that the the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem, the consulate had served as a de facto United States is even considering such a move is another unfortunate embassy for Arabs of the P.A. example of Israel being held to a different and discriminatory Bennett must make it clear that Israel will absolutely not accept standard by the international community.
    [Show full text]